GR 88218; (December, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 88218 December 19, 1989
CARCON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and UNIVET AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Univet Agricultural Products, Inc. filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court to recover from Carcon Development Corporation the unpaid balance of P31,853.25 for veterinary products sold and delivered. Univet attached the corresponding invoices to its complaint. In its Answer, Carcon admitted the purchases but denied liability, asserting it had paid Univet in hogs through Univet’s sales agent, Noli Itun, to the total value of P238,349.20. Carcon claimed this resulted in an overpayment and set up a counterclaim.
Univet subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, supported by affidavits from its officials. The affiants asserted Univet never authorized Itun to accept payment in kind, that the delivery receipts were made out to Itun personally, and that Itun had been dismissed for engaging in personal business with clients like Carcon. The motion contained a notice of hearing for November 25, 1983. Carcon did not appear on that date. The trial court then issued an order giving Carcon ten days to file an opposition, after which the motion would be deemed submitted for decision.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court’s omission to conduct an actual hearing on the motion for summary judgment constitutes a grave defect rendering the subsequent summary judgment void.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the summary judgment was valid and the lack of a formal hearing was not a fatal defect. The Court explained that the theory of summary judgment allows a court to dispense with a trial if the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file show no genuine issue as to any material fact. A hearing on such a motion is for the purpose of determining whether the issues are genuine or sham, not for receiving evidence on the merits of the case.
The Court found that Univet complied with procedural requirements by serving the motion at least ten days before the specified hearing date. When Carcon failed to appear, the trial court acted within its discretion by allowing it to file opposing affidavits, as permitted under Rule 34. Carcon filed only an unverified opposition without any counter-affidavits to contradict Univet’s sworn statements. By not requesting a hearing after submitting its opposition, Carcon acquiesced to the court’s directive for submission. Given the absence of any opposing affidavits to challenge Univet’s evidence demonstrating that Carcon’s defense of payment was sham, a hearing would have served no purpose. The trial court had sufficient basis to render summary judgment based on the submitted records. Therefore, the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the judgment was correct.